LESSONS LEARNT IN DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE

PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION

SAFETY MANAGEMENT
Marton Marosszeky1, Khalid Karim 2 , Steven Davis 3 , Nitin Naik4

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the lessons learned to date in a safety-performance benchmarking project,
where the client funded research to develop measures that would drive improvement on two
concurrent hospital construction projects.
The study shows the development of the performance measurement regime that was
adopted and the complexity involved in developing effective feedback mechanisms for
supervisors and workers on site.
This work is still in progress and each week the research team and the project team gain
new insights into the difficulties that are faced in any attempt to transform the construction
workplace.
The process to date has been crudely modelled, however it has to be recognised that such
models are not generic, rather they reflect the particular process on a project.

KEYWORDS
Safety in construction, performance measurement, feedback

Multiplex Professor of Engineering Construction Innovation, Director ACCI, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia.
2
Deputy Director ACCI, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales,
Australia.
Lecturer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia.
4
Postgraduate research student, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South
Wales, Australia.
INTRODUCTION
Safety and quality continue to remain critical priorities in the context of improving
productivity and efficiency in the construction industry within Australia as well as overseas.
Larsson and Field (2002), in their analysis of the Victorian construction industry, provide
evidence of continued unacceptable risk exposure in terms of safety. Edwards and Nicholas
(2002) in their study of the UK construction industry portray it as the most hazardous
industry. Similarly, recent studies by the authors have showed that the cost of quality related
problems is of the same magnitude as the profitability of organisations in the sector.
(Marosszeky et al. 2002, Thomas et al. 2002).
In the project reported in this paper the client, a regional hospital authority, identified
safety and quality performance as critical areas for improvement. The client had two projects
of a similar scale (>$100 million) being constructed concurrently and decided to fund the
research with a view to drive process improvement through comparison between the two
projects. Both projects were to be built by the same general contractor and the client had their
agreement to cooperate in the project and implement ideas that emerged out of it. While the
original intent had been to conduct performance measurement in both safety and quality, the
lack of formal management processes in relation to quality made this task impractical and
this paper presents the lessons learned in relation to safety performance measurement and
benchmarking.
The research method used was essentially an iterative process that involves study/analysis
of the subject of measurement (e.g. process), identifying potential performance measures,
prioritising and accepting/discarding measures, and finally the development/refinement of
Key Performance Indicators, as well as the feedback mechanism, and their implementation.
Letza (1996) formulated a flow chart for this iterative mechanism as discussed later.
While the work is still in progress, a number of lessons have been learned in the process -
some of them surprising. This paper presents those lessons by placing the current project in
the context of past research, followed by a brief description of the research objectives and
methodology, and then providing a detailed description of how the process unfolded.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND FEEDBACK IN SAFETY

Safety management systems have largely been developed in response to statutory
requirements. Thus reporting has focused mostly on mandatory information related to
accidents and injuries. Such measures suffer from three drawbacks. Firstly, they measure
what happens after the event and are reactive in terms of management response. Secondly, in
the absence of any proactive measure, causal relationships cannot be established. Thirdly,
they are negative in nature and acknowledged as being unsuccessful as measures of safety
performance (Trethewy et al. 2000, Mohamed 2003).
More recently, the focus is shifting towards more detailed management oriented
measurements that have the potential to influence processes on the project being assessed.
These include the subjective performance rating used by Jaselkis (1996) and development of
the Site Safety Meter (based on a traditional site inspection) by Trethewy et al. (2000). Marsh
et al. (1995) used measures such as access to heights, housekeeping, and personal protective
equipment to try to influence behaviour and Mohamed (2003) formulated a performance
measurement system at an organisational level that did suggest the use of operational (i.e. site
based) performance measures, this approach however was not supported in responses from
industry.
The discussion and development of performance measurement in the 'Lean Movement'
in construction can be classified into two broad categories. One strand, somewhat consistent
with preceding attempts, mostly describes performance in terms of outcomes, the other
focuses on processes.
Typical examples of outcome based performance measurement relate to safety, quality
and environmental failures, productivity, reliability of deliveries, customer satisfaction, cost
and schedule variations, design/documentation deficiency, and management dimensions such
as leadership and training (Ellis Jr., 1997; Gaarslev, 1997; Tilley et al., 1997; Ghio, 1997;
El-Mashaleh et al., 2001; Saurin et al., 2001; Alarcon et al., 2001; Ramirez et al., 2003).
On the other hand, performance measurement in relation to processes includes waste as
defined in Lean Construction (Alarcon, 1997), look ahead planning and plan percent
complete (PPC) (Ballard, 1997; Ballard & Howell, 1997), safety process improvement
(Saurin et al., 2002), quality process improvement (Marosszeky et al., 2002; Thomas et al.,
2002) and measuring a firm's conformance to lean ideas (Diekmann et al., 2003).
In much of the literature on construction performance measurement the underlying
assumption has been that simple, straightforward feedback will serve the objective of
continuous improvement. Thus feedback has been informal and un-structured despite
recognition of the fact that a learning culture is critical to continuous improvement (Scott and
Harris, 1998; Loo, 2003). Consequently in construction, scant attention has been paid to the
actual feedback mechanism to ensure that it is effective, or to the questions that need to be
asked such as:
Exactly what do the numbers mean to the recipient of information?
What information is most useful?
What should be the format of presentation? and
At what level should the information be initially fed for further dissemination?
These need to be considered in order to avoid the possibility of different operators
associating different meaning to the same information, or worse still, the feedback not having
the impact that it warrants.
It is quite possible, as became evident in the work being reported in this paper, that what
is deemed to be positive feedback by one party is seen as negative by another. Santos and
Powell (200 1) found that this even occurred where an information recipient was a
stakeholder in the performance measurement development process itself. There may be
several reasons for this, one is that honest criticism is hard to take (Cleeton, 1992), another
factor may be that the information recipient feels threatened by the information or its impact.
Unfortunately such reactions generate resistance to change (Santos and Powell, 2001) and
can undermine a process of continuous improvement, the objective of the performance
measurement in the first place.
Santos and Powell (200 1) discuss this issue in terms of push and pull learning. Push
learning involves putting external agents such as researchers or consultants in charge of
deciding what the learners need to learn. In contrast, in pull learning individuals in the
enterprise are in charge of the learning process and its objectives. Pull learning is much more
likely to create a 'learning mood' that maximises the acceptance of feedback. However, push
learning can be the trigger for stimulating pull learning, and this should be the objective of
push learning.
Forza and Salvador (2000) investigated performance measurement in terms of the
"distinctive dimensions" over which the quality of the feedback can vary. They also sought to
determine whether these distinctive dimensions change as the hierarchical level of the
information user changes. Two of these dimensions were found to be useful for the detailed
operational performance feedback that is the focus of this study. These are relevance as
performance feedback orientation to the achievement of objectives and dynamic adjustment
ofperformance feedback.
The former relates to elements that show objectives and trends, the relation of the
measures to planned objectives and the timely receipt of information for the initiation of
improvement actions. The latter deals with the changes to indicators depending on the
situation being addressed, and to reflect change in planned objectives and programs.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study was to investigate the development and implementation of safety
related performance measurement at the detailed operational level within the supply chain,
i.e. the work by trade subcontractors, and identify an effective feedback mechanism to
stimulate learning and improvement. It focuses on the overall process environment, as
opposed to the behaviour of individuals (Behaviour Based Management), the latter deserving
attention in its own right.
The general framework used to measure performance is presented in Karim et al. (2003).
In brief it involves three parts. Firstly, is management complying with the management
system? This usually involves following plans and looking for problems. Secondly, is
management responding to those problems? Thirdly, is this improving the project? This
requires outcome measures. However, the outcomes should be measured at the process level
rather than the project level to enable feedback.
The skill of effective performance measurement is in several areas, first of all it is
important to identify areas that reflect critical business or process goals so that the
measurement task reflects strategic thinking, secondly specific measures have to be identified
that are easy to measure, and thirdly feedback must be designed so that it creates the desire in
those measured to improve on past performance.
The development of a performance measurement framework is essentially an iterative
process that involves study, experience and analysis as well as negotiation with operational
management at every stage of the process. Potential performance measures were evaluated
based on past experience and project goals; they were then prioritised and selected based on
the availability of information on the project and compatibility with existing management
processes and philosophies. The difficulty within these negotiations should not be
underestimated, even when senior management of the constructor is fully behind the project
getting buy in from site staff can be difficult and slow.
Once the overall framework is agreed, implementation is still ahead and there is a great
deal yet to go; this includes developing measurement protocols, trialing and refining those
with operational management, developing feedback for discussion and review, and then
refining and implementing the feedback until it is in a form that operational management
accepts.
Letza (1996) formulated a flow chart for this iterative mechanism as shown in Figure 1a
below. In Figure 1b the actual process undertaken on this project is summarised. The
essential difference between the two models is that there are several stages at which
agreements have to be negotiated, and approvals secured. As the detail of the proposed
performance process develops new issues emerge, often requiring renegotiation. In addition,
at each of these stages there is a need for significant development and testing of ideas,
refinement, acceptance and agreement.

Familiarisation/review Familiarisation/review

Interviews Interviews and stakeholder workshops

(to determine key performance (to determine key performance
measures) measures)

First proposal Conceptual proposal to select what

performance attributes are to be used
and agreement reached

Second proposal Development of data collection

· ·and agreement reached

Acceptance
Detailed Implementation, trial and
refinement of data collection

Implementation
Development of drafts form of feedback,
refinement and agreement

____. Linear process Detailed Implementation, trial and

refinement of data feedback
-----7 Feedback
. . . . . . . . . .> Input

la: Letza's model (1996) lb: Model of actual process

Figure 1: Iterative process for developing key performance measures

PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The process of developing the :framework essentially began with documentation analysis to
examine previous experience with performance measurement within the area of safety. A
preliminary framework for performance measurement was then designed, reviewed and
refined through an iterative process of joint stakeholder meetings :from both projects and the
concurrent development of ideas. Data collection commenced once this was agreed. The
overall initial framework is summarised in Table 1.
There was a quick realisation that in some cases these scores were simplistic in that it was
possible for both sites to achieve scores consistently close to 100%, even though normal
 industry practice in these areas is much lower. So for example, all targeted toolbox meetings
were held. At first both sites found it difficult to achieve the number of planned audits,
however once the monthly performance scores were published the actual quickly converged
with the target. This supported the adage that if you measure performance, it will tend to
improve. This initial :framework was then subsequently developed and modified over the
following months along the basis of the process described in Figure 1. From the outset, as
exemplified in measure 5, we were looking to compare the performance of subcontractors in
order to generate some healthy competition and to create the basis of public recognition of
the best subcontractor each month.
The following two examples describe the application of the :framework in the elimination
of safety hazards on each site. The
Outc:omclndlc:ator
first is an examination of how Po;::::::." N•
ht-+T~oo~lbc~xT.Tal~ko--hP~Ion~no~dV~o."-k~tua~I-~No~s.-hT~M~ff~~~m~o~uu~M~WU~O~Im~ply~to~M~CO~m~wh~otM~,~Ih~o~
effective! y subcontractor Closed out Items·% ~~~::::.~a':J~~:~~~~a:-n~~=~::'r:!~e~e:d~:t~as
. weekly safety committee meetings. The second measure
management was respondmg to ~:~.:;'~~~.!·.~~:.::.'"•tylosuootholhodboon
hazards identified in site safety 2 SmotyWalko Closodoulltoms•% Safotywslkogene..tellotsofhoza<dolhothovetobe
the
rectified, % of Items closed out by the end of the week
Jk d th d • • th 3 days later was to be recorded.
wa S, an e SeCQfl 18 lfl e USe h3-+re;;;.,;;;-;kO,;;b,;;;;e..,;;;;;olo;;;lon;-h;P~Ion~ne~dV-;;;-,_-.;:k;;;;tuoY:t-~No~o.-hT~M-;;;co;;;;;n";;;;;,.;;;;to•c;;;plon;;;;n;;;ed;;;;toc;;;co;;;;nd;;;;;uc;-;to-;;;;ce;:;;;rto;;;-;lnn;;;;um;;;;be~,o;;;-f-1
f £ •• task observations each week to assess whether the
Q per ormance measures anstng Closedoutltems-% ~~:~;;,n:~:o;8~=~~~8o~!:~:~~o:'~::,g~~~!~~;;:nactual
out of the application of the Site ~~~~:~::r::~~~~:a~~~~~~::a~:~~:~~~::::~~~-
sa1cety Meter (SSM) (Trethewy et 4 SlteSafetyMeter s,.·.·.·.·.·.,·.·n·o·n·",,.•lte
~
parameters related to
Thasltesafetymeter(SSM}wasusedtoscorethesafety
environment; because of scepticism about this measure
Initially It was only used on the leading deck. This

al, 2000). It is pertinent to note ILs---hswubc:;;;o;;;;;n,,;;;;:,,;;;;,.,:---f-.orhl.hHio&c;;S,,-;-;,,:;;;.m;;;o.po,;;alte;;;-;,;;;;,.:;:;;-,.-h";;m'Initially

here that, all along, some
contractor staff viewed the SSM
with a degree of suspicion and SO 6 out
initially it was only used on the
!I;
..;;-;h•c;;;lle-;;;;.==,-------1
"""···""·ed;;;co;;:;ac;;;;o'eh.(o:;;;:,.,-;;
the score based on a quarterly audit of
SafetySystem asa%. =~~u~~:r::~~~.~~~o~~!~~~~:~~~~~:~~!~~':~~=~:;fe
time, After a period of negotiation It was agreed that the
::,·,!:~::.:~~~~~~,:,·;.::~:::."",.:,~~~~.~·••"a-
offaudlt.
Knowledgeln& Knowledgelmprovedw% Aquostlonnalrewasdevelopedtoassessworkar
knowledge In relation to safety and It was agr&ad to run
theteoteve.,omonthstoaeewhoth.. ov..allknowledge
about safety Issues Improved.

leading deck, with more 7 ~~~;:~~~t~lmo ~~~,Mn's&Avaragelost ~o~!~~~~~;~:!~:~o:;a;o~a~~~s~l:~t::::.::r

widespread use occurring slowly.
The safety walk is one of the Tablet' Thelnltlolpem,.moncomeo...ement ....mewori<
major safety management
processes used on construction sites in Australia to control safety. In this walk the site safety
committee systematically walks through the whole site and documents every unsafe working
practice and hazard they see. Furthermore, they identify potential upcoming hazards to alert
the workforce to them in advance of the work being done - an issue that caused us some
difficulty mid-way through implementation. Each issue listed is assigned to a specific party
to rectify, usually the subcontractor responsible for the worker or area or, in some cases, the
head contractor. The party assigned is then expected to fix the problem or take precautionary
measures as quickly as possible and to report back to the safety committee a week later at the
following meeting.
Initially we applied the second part of the :framework (management responsiveness) to
this by determining the number of errors identified in the safety walk closed out within one
week. This turned out to be unsatisfactory because 100% of items were closed out, yet we
observed very similar items appearing on the list the next week indicating a lack of learning.
This led us to measure the number of hazards that are being created by each subcontract
team. Figure 2 illustrates a typical result from one of the sites. The number of errors per
subcontractor was divided by the work hours to make the results comparable. The bar chart
 then clearly indicated where the priorities needed to be assigned for targeting specific trades
for improvement.
However, the actual question that we wanted to answer was whether the trade groups
were learning from their mistakes, or were they just remedying specific errors and repeating
them week after week? Our position was that repetition indicated the absence of learning and
we wanted to see how much learning was happening. This led us to take an interest in the
percentage of items found on each safety walk that had occurred previously (Figure 3).
It quickly became obvious that the issue of repetition is complicated and two specific
problems emerged. The first is that if you define repetition as the same unsafe practice or
hazard reoccurring then this percentage will naturally increase as the project progresses
Figure 2 ·Comparison of Average Safety Walk items per 500 hours in as there is a much higher probability that
Month 1 &2 any given issue has arisen before, leading to
g
"'. almost every error becoming a repeat item
f. ~
~ ,e ~ ,__
f----1
G
=
f-li-iMPROvcMCN 1
Cl Monlh1- Average safety walk
items per 500 hours
and the measure loosing its sensitivity. This
led us to define repetition as an item that had
p~
f----1
'- /
.. ..- Ill Month 2- Average safely walk

• --
.!
~

- items per 500 hours occurred in a safety walk in the immediately

: dill 1m
1!. previous month. This also had the advantage
E a; a;
~ iii
Ol Ol
~ that the time over which the repetition was
1 c
~0 :::0 :;;;Ill 0 :0E ·c0" L '2.Q
"0
c

based was limited and so scores from earlier

a: [jj <t'S0c
I])
§ ~ ~"
:J

0
LL
(/)
(,)
in the project could be compared with those
Trade later in the project.
The second problem was that as we
probed more deeply and spoke of publishing data on the walls of the site sheds, everyone
started to look more closely at the scores and it was realised that some of the issues listed on
safety walks are potential hazards in work tasks yet to be done and hence they should not be
included. This led us to more carefully analyse the listed items.
The next problem was how to
present the data. Our initial presentation Figure 3 ·Comparison of Normalised Repeat Items
showed the number of items for each per 100 workers in Month 1 & 2
trade so that a comparison between
Sr-----------------~
trades could be made. This presentation
also showed changes over time, month 6
- - - - - - - - - 1 DNormalisedRepeatllems-Monlh1
by month. However, the head contractor 4 DNonnafised Repeat Items- Month 2

on the site rightly pointed out that these 2

measures are of limited value unless the 0
jj ~
data shows the breakdown of the
individual problems so that the
~
a
!
..a.~ ~

subcontractors know where to focus Trade

their training.
 Consequently, a presentation showing the number of individual items and changes over
time was created (Figure 4). The head contractor found this presentation to be extremely
useful. There next issue was the need for consistency between the safety committee minutes
and the graph, for example if the minutes mentioned that a "general cleanup was required"
then it would be inappropriate if the
Figure 4 - Formwork Trade- Repeat Items graphical presentation referred to this as
Month 1 & 2 "dirty work area". The requirement for
en
E accuracy is critical if information is
!5.---------------------------. being used to recognise excellence and
i4~----------------------­
~3~;r-------------------­ mMonth 1 to promote friendly competition between
II:
'0 2 1111 Month 2 the subcontractors on the site.
c) 1
z A second application of the
~ 0 co oc-c
Q)Ol
Ole
framework was to use the SSM to focus
:0 "' ·- efforts on improvement of the physical
~~
Ill Q.)
-cc"'
.,e.i!l
"' " Ol
-'rn safety environment. This process scores
Trends of Repeat Items a range of potential hazards on a site that
correlate with the highest safety risks (as
a percent correct) and gives a simple score, enabling the safety of the project environment to
be compared week by week. On this project the categories shown in Table 2 were used.
1. Working Habits- Use of protective gear and risk factor.
The site is divided into
2. Order & Tidiness (housekeeping)- Waste bins, work area tidiness, access ways. areas and, in each area, each
3. Electrical & Lighting Temporary electrical boards, leads and tools. Lighting to work area. item is rated as acceptable or
4. Scaffold and Ladders- Erected and secured correctly. unacceptable. The score is
5. Protection Against Falls and Falling Objects -Perimeter handrail, penetrations, a/head protection.
calculated as the number of
6. Plant and Equipment -Holst or crane, concrete pump, jackhanuner, and other. acceptable items divided by the
total number of items and given
Table 2: Site Safety Meter (SSM) Category as a percentage. At first an
overall score was generated for
each site and the trends were
plotted. It was found that relative to previous uses of the SSM on other sites the safety
environment on both projects rated well. In order to identify the weakest aspects of site
safety, the focus shifted to a closer examination of errors, this was examined both by trade
and by issue.
Some site managers were reluctant to use the SSM. Two reasons were given, one was that
if the site was to be surveyed at random times, there was a possibility that the data might be
gathered on a day when the site just happened to be in an unusual state of disarray. A second
issue of concern was that positives were counted in calculating the SSM measure rather than
simply listing the errors. This is a conceptual problem. It seems that some managers are
comfortable with the traditional approach to safety management and the outputs that it yields,
even though they do not engender a move towards continuous improvement. In general,
management seemed to be against any form of feedback that could be regarded as criticism.
However, it was finally agreed that the collection of data could occur during the safety walk.
 The next idea regarding the implementation of the site safety meter related to the rate of
improvement. The purpose behind
Figure 5 - Comparison of% incorrect safety environment
this was the need to use it as an items using site safety meter - Month 1,2 & 3
incentive for promoting healthy --1. Working Habits
competition. It emerged that
rewarding on the basis of an -...2. Order & Tidiness

improvement from 80% to 90% was -.k- 3. Electricity & Lighting

similar to an improvement from 98%
to 99% in that in both cases the .,....'-4. Scaffold & Ladders

number of errors was halved (in

--5. Protection Against Falls
actual fact the latter is more difficult & Falling Objects
to achieve but this was ignored to --6. Plant & Equipment
avoid complication). However, in the Date of Site Safety Motor Reading

original mechanism for use of site

safety meter this was not so obvious
and a subcontractor starting with a poor value appeared to make the most improvement. In
order to overcome this in presenting the data, we decided to present it as the number of errors
divided by the total (Figure 5) rather than as the number of correct items divided by the total.
This changes the above to examples to 20% to 10% and 2% to 1% and makes it more
obvious that both have halved their error rate. However, 10% wrong sounds worse than 90%
right and so this change was perceived as negative as well, further underscoring the
sensitivity of site management to anything that could be construed as criticism.
Another issue discovered during the application of site safety meter was that as work
changes, and the crew moves from safer work to more hazardous work, the same crew may
create more hazards in their work. However, this may not be reflected in the safety meter
score since the computation depends on total number of activities.

CONCLUSION
The research had started with the objective of detailed process level performance
measurement and learning about effective feedback mechanisms, but even then the
researchers were surprised by the way the process unfolded. It is evident now that it's a
different story when trying to stimulate improvement at a detailed process level. Difficulties
will be encountered. Even the stakeholders (senior site management) involved in the process
of developing and refining performance measures don't see the problems until feedback
starts. As a result, generalised models such as that proposed by Letza ( 1996) understate the
complexity of the task. For this reason, design and piloting of feedback should be concurrent
with development of performance indicators as far as possible. Similarly, while the feedback
dimensions noted previously from the work by Forza and Salvador (2000) were expected to
have a bearing, they took on a different meaning on this project. In their case dynamic
adjustment of performance feedback relates to changing organisational objectives, whereas in
this study the objectives within the process also changed- e.g. changing the objective from
positive to negative feedback or vice versa. Similarly "relevance" as defined by them relates
to optimum decision making whereas in this case it related to delivering the appropriate
"message". Consequently, a number of observations emerged during the study. These
include:
• Some production process anomalies become apparent only when detailed
feedback is developed.
• Once communication of detailed feedback starts, there is a desire to filter
information and make it more targeted. This in tum leads to changes in the type
and format of presentation. Even the choice of words becomes an issue in detailed
feedback.
• Detailed process level performance measurement and feedback encounters the
same type of resistance and suspicion that existed at the management level when
non-traditional performance measurement was first introduced. In this case, even
the timing of inspections was an issue for a while. Strong leadership and skilled
negotiation are prerequisites for success.
• In the drive to improve process reliability, there is no substitute for getting into
the specific detail of the errors that are to be avoided. While at a project level, say
safety environment of the entire site, broad measures raise awareness and lead to
overall improved performance, it was found that even high aggregate scores can
hide specific areas of weakness.
The purpose of measuring performance is to create feedback that will lead to improvement. It
is relatively easy to gather lots of performance data, however it takes a great deal of effort to
extract from the data useful trends and to identify where efforts for improvement should be
directed. Finally, it is surprisingly difficult to develop ways to present the data so that the
information leaps out in a way that will create a reaction that leads to improved performance
The process described in this paper is currently being tested by implementation on site.
On completion of the trial, techniques such as time series analysis, linear regression, and
multiple regression will be used to examine the relationship between the framework and
improvements in safety. Furthermore, a survey instrument will be used to determine whether
some of the performance measures are more effective than others. Pending this detailed
analysis, anecdotal evidence suggests that the management of safety on the projects under
study is improving as a result of this work.
Acknowledgement: The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding and in-kind
support for this research provided by the Central Coast Area Health Service of New South
Wales, Australia. The authors are also grateful to the Walter Construction Group for their
significant contribution of time and resources to the project.

REFERENCES

Alarcon, L. F., Grillo, A., Freire, J. and Diethelm, S. (2001). Learning from Collaborative
Benchmarking in the Construction Industry, IGLC-9, Professional Activities Centre,
Singapore, 407-416.
Alarcon, L. F. (1997). Modelling Waste and Performance in Construction, Lean Construction
(Ed: Luis Alarcon), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 51-66.
Ballard, G. (1997). Lookahead Planning: A Missing Link in Production Control, IGLC-5,
International Group for Lean Construction, 13-26.
Ballard, G. and G. Howell (1997). Implementing Lean Construction - Stabilizing Work
Flow, Lean Construction (Ed: Luis Alarcon), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 101-110.
Cleeton, D. (1992). Is your feedback achieving change? Industrial and Commercial Training,
24 (9).
Diekmann, J. E., Balonick, J., Krewedl, M. and Troendle, L. (2003). Measuring Lean
Conformance, Proceedings 1 J'h Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 84-91.
Edwards, D. J. and Nicholas, J. (2002). The State of Health and Safety in the UK
Construction Industry With a Focus on Plant Operators, Structural Survey, 20 (2), 78-87.
Ellis Jr., R. D. (1997). Identifying and Monitoring Key Indicators of Project Success, Lean
Construction (Ed: Luis Alarcon), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 43-50.
El-Mashaleh, M., O'Brien, W. J. and London, K. (2001). Envelopment Methodology to
Measure and Compare Subcontractor Productivity at the Firm Level, IGLC-9,
Professional Activities Centre, Singapore, 305-322.
Forza, C. and Salvador, F. (2000). Assessing some distinctive dimensions of performance
feedback information in high performing plants, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20(3), 359-385.
Gaarslev, A. (1997). TQM the Nordic Way: TQMNW, Lean Construction (Ed: Luis
Alarcon), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 463-470.
Ghio, V. A. (1997). Development of Construction Work Methods and Detailed Production
Planning for On-site Productivity Improvement, IGLC-5, International Group for Lean
Construction, 149-156.
Jaselkis E. (1996). Strategies For Achieving Excellence in Construction Safety Performance,
Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 122 (1 ), 61-70.
Karim, K., Davis, S., Marosszeky, M. and Naik, N., Project Learning through Process
Performance Measurement in Safety and Quality, CIOB Journal, December, 2003.
Larson, T. J. and Field, B. (2002). The Distribution of Occupational Injury Risks in the
Victorian Construction Industry, Safety Science, 40, 439-456.
Letza, S. R. (1996). The design and implementation of the balanced business scorecard,
Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, 2(3), 54-76.
Loo, R. (2003). A multi-level causal model for best practices in project management,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 10(1 ), 29-36.
Marsh, T. W., Robertson, I. T., Duff, A. R., Phillips, R. A., Cooper, M.D. and Weyman, A.
(1995). Improving Safety Behaviour Using Goal Setting and Feedback, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 5-12.
Mohammed S. (2003). Scorecard Approach to Benchmarking Organisational Safety Culture
in Construction, Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 129 (1), 80-88.
Marosszeky M., Thomas R., Karim K., Davis S. and McGeorge D. (2002). Quality
Measurement tools for lean production from enforcement to empowerment, Proceedings
1
10 h Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (Ed: Carlos T.
Formoso & Glenn Ballard), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sui, Brazil, 87-99.
Ramirez, R. R., Alarcon, L. F. and Knights, P. (2003). Benchmarking Management Practices
in the Construction Industry, Proceedings 1ih Annual Conference on Lean Construction,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 553-566.
Saurin, T. A., Formoso, C. T., Guimaraes, L. B. M and Soares, A. C. (2002). Safety and
Production: An Integrated Planning and Control Model, Proceedings 1oth Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction (Ed: Carlos T. Formoso & Glenn Ballard),
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sui, Brazil.
Saurin, T. A., Formoso, C. T. and Guimaraes, L. B. M (2001). Integrating Safety into
Production Planning and Control Process: An Exploratory Study, IGLC-9, Professional
Activities Centre, Singapore, 335-348.
Santos, A. and Powell, J. A. (200 1). Effectiveness of push and pull learning strategies in
construction management, Journal of Workplace Learning, 13 (2), 47-56.
Scott, S. and Harris, R. (1998). A methodology for generating feedback in the construction
industry, The Learning Organization, 5(3), 121-127.
Thomas, R., Marosszeky, M., Karim, K., Davis, S. and McGeorge, D. (2002). The
Importance of Project Cultures in Achieving Quality Outcomes in Construction,
Proceedings 1 dh Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (Ed:
Carlos T. Formoso & Glenn Ballard), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sui, Brazil.
Tilley, P., Wyat, A. and Mohamed, S. (1997). Indicators of Design and Documentation
Deficiency, IGLC-5, International Group for Lean Construction, 137-148.
Trethewy R., Cross J., Marosszeky M., and Gavin I. 2000, "Safety measurement, a positive
approach towards best practice", Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Aust/NZ, 16
(3).
Trethewy R., Marosszeky, M. and Cross, J. (1999). Practices for improving contractor
management of safety in the Australian construction industry, The Journal of
Occupational Health and Safety, 15 (5), 423-432.